↓ Skip to main content

Advising patients to increase fluid intake for treating acute respiratory infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advising patients to increase fluid intake for treating acute respiratory infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004419.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle PB Guppy, Sharon M Mickan, Chris B Del Mar, Sarah Thorning, Alexander Rack

Abstract

Acute respiratory infection is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Advice to increase fluid intake is a frequent treatment recommendation. Attributed benefits of fluids include replacing increased insensible fluid losses, correcting dehydration from reduced intake and reducing the viscosity of mucus. However, there are theoretical reasons for increased fluid intake to cause harm. Anti-diuretic hormone secretion is increased in lower respiratory tract infections of various aetiologies. This systematic examination of the evidence sought to determine the benefit versus harm from increasing fluid intake.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 27 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#302,910
of 15,465,366 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#717
of 11,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,408
of 98,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,465,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 98,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.